So someone wants to bring animals into the Ark for over 1 year to preserve them and you some how think it is more logical to bring in a 10 000lb elephant then a 300lb elephant, really bro? WOW, JUST WOW

As I said before that 300lb elephant (which, going by weight alone, would be a newborn) requires suckling. On average, it will continue to be dependent on it's mother's milk for three years. So, assuming the ark story is true, it may at first seem logical to bring a 300lb elephant along, but the bottom line is that it's not logical at all.

The Bible uses the term ''after their kind" so yes it is indicating that the Zebra, donkey and horse are "one kind", bro I have studied the Bible a lot more then you and have read it front to back every single year, you really want to challange me on what the Bible says?

I sure do, because (a) I don't think you know it as well as you think you do, and (b) even if you do know it that doesn't make what the Bible says logical, possible or even probable. Let's examine the situation more closely, shall we?

The zebra, the horse and the donkey all belong in the same genus, so let's assume that that is the modern term for what the Bible calls "kind." It's a stretch, but let's assume it. Let's also assume that a male and a female horse were on the ark. If so, all zebras must have drowned at the time of the flood. And yet, here they are. Where did they come from?

Are you familiar with Jacob and how he took care of Laben's cattle?... Well this is a fascinating story cause it clearly states that the cattle that pro-created had speckled and stripe off-springs, weird right?

Right, and? Those offspring, despite their different skin pigmentation where still the same species. A horse doesn't give birth to zebras, and a zebra isn't a horse with fancy stripes.

if they are capable of having off-spring the Bible classifies this as "one kind" and yes the Lion and the Tiger can procreate but I do not think a Lion and a big car can pro-create could be wrong though

So, your argument then is that "kind" would actually be the modern equivalent of genus. Even if that were the case, according to wikipedia there are over 1,000 genera that are mammals alone, and if you were to sample two of every kind, you'd still need to carry over two thousand different animals. And that would be for mammals. You still have all the things that "creepeth upon the earth" to go.

And now we come to the point where I bitchslap you with your own hand... The Bible's text is actually clear when it says: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." It says nothing about "kinds" but it does say that you need seven of every "clean" beast, and two of every unclean one.

You asked me to name 100 different mammals and placed no restrictions on where they live.

Well duh, I thought you would be smart enough to stick to the subject wooooooooooosh....

I laugh at your lack of knowledge of the Bible bro, you are amateur at best.

I said the donkey, zebra and the horse share a common ancestor, so yes through small changes in generations they develope different features. We have been over this a thousand time with MOS, myself and many others, we have no problem with micro evolution, we believe it to be true but there is also a limit to the changes, no different then humans, black, white, orientals etc and here is why I laugh at you; the story of Jacob and Laben describes where an animal that had no stripes pro-created and had an animal with stripes, so you can argue that it did not happen, that is fair but there is no contradiction within the Bible, so that should shut the doors on the Biblical definition of the word -kind- or is your stubborn ass going to continue insisting that is not what it meant when I just showed you over and over that it is in fact what it meant.

Is it just me or does this seem absurd? a grown man actually believing this?

you are just dismissing the arguments presented with half cocked theories.

Bro I am fully aware of my position and I agree with you it is much easier to believe that these events did not take place, I can admit that. But you guy are presenting arguments and I am giving my answers. Believe me I do not expect you to walk away believing the flood story, that is not my reasoning for debating with you.

We have been over this a thousand time with MOS, myself and many others, we have no problem with micro evolution, we believe it to be true but there is also a limit to the changes, no different then humans, black, white, orientals etc and here is why I laugh at you;

Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?

the story of Jacob and Laben describes where an animal that had no stripes pro-created and had an animal with stripes

Right and? Are you seriously arguing that a brown cow is different from a white cow with brown splotches? What's next? You'll tell us that chocolate milk comes from brown cows and regular milk from white ones?

so that should shut the doors on the Biblical definition of the word -kind- or is your stubborn ass going to continue insisting that is not what it meant when I just showed you over and over that it is in fact what it meant.

No. All you showed me is that in one place the Bible says that an animal without stripes procreated and its offspring had stripes. You've provided no evidence - even by the Biblical standard for what qualifies as evidence - that kind refers to what would today be called genus. Indeed, the text of Genesis itself doesn't say what you claim it says. It says nothing about "kind":

Quote

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

I see no reference to "kind" here; but I do see references to "every." So you can keep waving your hands and arguing, but in doing so you are going against the actual words that the text uses. Why would you feel the need to do that, especially for a divinely inspired text?

You see the reference to -every- and yes it was every but Zebras did not exist at this point, like I said slight changes in features over time.

Bro you are making a fool out of yourself, seriously stop.

Every theologian on the planet know that the Bible says only child when it is to his proper wife, he can have 10 other children but if they are with other woman that he is not married to the Bible refers to him as having his only child, it has to do with the language more so, Hebrew terminology but no theologians have a conflict with this, everyone (except for you, lol) knows this. BTW I can give a hundred more examples of where the Bible says -only child- and in the previous verses it stated that he had many children.

'm no televangelist, that's for sure.

You certainly are not, that is for sure

The subject was "I bet you can't name 100 mammals."

REALLY? Cmon now

Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?

NO that is not the reason at all, you are making that up bro, It is a big theory bro, not all of it is wrong.

Bro I am fully aware of my position and I agree with you it is much easier to believe that these events did not take place, I can admit that. But you guy are presenting arguments and I am giving my answers. Believe me I do not expect you to walk away believing the flood story, that is not my reasoning for debating with you.

serious question, what would happen if you didn't believe what you did. Do you consider the possibility that there is no god and you are in fact, wrong?

I will answer that I concede that there may be a god, I have seen no evidence but I cannot rule it out.

Every theologian on the planet know that the Bible says only child when it is to his proper wife, he can have 10 other children but if they are with other woman that he is not married to the Bible refers to him as having his only child, it has to do with the language more so, Hebrew terminology

God sure chose to send his divine word in a language that, apparently, can't properly express what he means to say and requires extensive interpretation, hand-waving and a "divining dictionary" (pun intended).

Yes. It was. You bet me that I couldn't name 100 mammals. You can even go back and look if you don't want to take my word for it. However, if you're really that bothered by dolphins and orcas making the list, you can bet me that I can't name two more, "non-fish" mammals. But remember, I named 98 such mammals already - are you willing to bet that there aren't two more I can name? I'll remind you, there are over 5,000 species of mammals today...

Yeah, we've been over this before. Evolution isn't ok when it conflicts with your beliefs but it's ok when it's necessary to prop them up. There's a word that describes the person who plays that game... do you know what it is?

NO that is not the reason at all, you are making that up bro, It is a big theory bro, not all of it is wrong.

That you think that it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. The fact is that you cannot present a single shred of evidence that contradicts any claim made by the theory of evolution - micro or macro, and you cannot dispute any of the evidence that is presented and widely accepted as supporting the theory by people a lot more educated in the subject than you.

Whether you choose to admit it or not your objection, at its core, boils down to one thing: it conflicts with your preexisting beliefs. You should have the balls to admit that outright.

God sure chose to send his divine word in a language that, apparently, can't properly express what he means to say and requires extensive interpretation, hand-waving and a "divining dictionary" (pun intended).

Frege in the 1800's invented formal logic, including propositional and predicate logic. This formal language stripped away much of the defects of natural language and has been extended to cover a variety of expressions / ways of talking in natural language (e.g., modal logic).

In other words, it seems Frege was smarter than the creator of the universe, whose infinite powers were only capable of sending His word in fractious bits via ancient natural language in a manner guaranteed to obfuscate the message. Hrm....

The new Testament is copied from minority text that are not that old, that is true, but the old Testament completed by the House of King James in 1611 was copied by certain Majority text of the 13 and 14th century, upon examining further manuscript circulating at that time the same was said "no 2 manuscripts where alike", of course lots of forgeries, lots of failed translation etc. This is to be expected, however when the dead sea scrolls where found in 1947 they where concluded to in fact be from the first century and some even as far back as 200BC. 38 out of the 39 books of the old Testament were found in the dead sea scroll and much to everyone surprise the manuscript of the 38 books where exactly the same as the manuscript used in the 17 century, 1600 years later and they where identical.

This means that the Old Testament has not been altered at all or has never changed in the last 2000 years how everyone claims. So just cause there are different contradicting manuscripts circulating today of the New Testament, it does not necessarily mean that the books were not copied by an identical text of the first century that has not been altered since..

The new Testament is copied from minority text that are not that old, that is true, but the old Testament completed by the House of King James in 1611 was copied by certain Majority text of the 13 and 14th century, upon examining further manuscript circulating at that time the same was said "no 2 manuscripts where alike", of course lots of forgeries, lots of failed translation etc. This is to be expected, however when the dead sea scrolls where found in 1947 they where concluded to in fact be from the first century and some even as far back as 200BC. 38 out of the 39 books of the old Testament were found in the dead sea scroll and much to everyone surprise the manuscript of the 38 books where exactly the same as the manuscript used in the 17 century, 1600 years later and they where identical.

This means that the Old Testament has not been altered at all or has never changed in the last 2000 years how everyone claims. So just cause there are different contradicting manuscripts circulating today of the New Testament, it does not necessarily mean that the books were not copied by an identical text of the first century that has not been altered since..

I'm constantly having to squash the garebear memes I come across as well. He posts with reckless abandon and used to do it with not a single response...that ain't happenin anymore.

That is a very dumb myth, people who believe this myth are gullible, people of the ancient world did not think the world was not round, teachers tell us this in elementary school, but I study history and every culture knew the earth was round so I don`t know where this stupid false image of ancient man came from. For crying out loud all you have to do is look at the moon to know the earth is round and people do climb high places and see the curvature of the earth, stupid myth.

Well, regardless of whether or not this God stuff is nonsense you're getting exactly what you want.

If God is completely bogus, you've lived your life as you wanted to without any religious nonsense. If God is real then you still get to live your life without the nonsense and when you die you get to spend eternity without God then too. You can enter eternity, seperate yourself from God and all of God's attributes and lock the door between you and God from the inside.

For me, if God is completely bogus I'll have spent my life dedicated to something that isn't real and willingly wasted time worshipping something that was never there to begin with; although, when I die I won't know the difference as I'll simply cease to be and will have no realization, not a single instant, that it wasn't real. If God is real then I've lived my life for him and then get to spend eternity with him.

That said, why would I be willing to take such a gamble with my life with "no proof whatsoever"? Why would I willingly surrender my life for God? There has to be something else there that nonbelievers don't understand. I mean, I know you summarized the Holy Spirit with "tweak their brains so that a warm, fuzzy feeling resulted", but maybe there's still something more to it than that despite best efforts to reduce it all away? Maybe I'm just crazy, maybe I'm delusional, maybe I'm brainwashed, maybe I'm on drugs, maybe I'm uneducated, maybe I'm a moron or maybe.....just maybe.....I've experienced the risen Christ and it was more than a brain-tweaked, warm-fuzzy feeling beyond your best efforts to be reasoned away and reduced to nothing.

That is a very dumb myth, people who believe this myth are gullible, people of the ancient world did not think the world was not round, teachers tell us this in elementary school, but I study history and every culture knew the earth was round so I don`t know where this stupid false image of ancient man came from. For crying out loud all you have to do is look at the moon to know the earth is round and people do climb high places and see the curvature of the earth, stupid myth.